How Much Do You Really Know About the Shaft in Your Driver?

Conversations around golf shafts almost invariably degrade into dumpster fires of misinformation. There is unarguably a tremendous amount of confusion on the consumer side that’s been willfully fomented to no small degree by manufacturers who benefit from consumer ignorance.

With a near total lack of standardization, an entire mythology has been built around unrealistic launch and spin expectations and the otherworldly benefits of exotic materials. In reality, there are only but so many ways for a shaft to bend, but the messaging works because so few understand the actual dynamics of the golf shaft.

Given that the shaft industry that can’t even standardize around something as seemingly basic as flex, universal measurements and material disclosures aren’t likely to be mandated, but the abundance of marketing malarkey routinely fed to consumers is often entirely disingenuous, and sometimes downright fraudulent.

Like a Box of Chocolates…

If the shaft industry had a business card, it would read “It is what it is, except when it’s not.”

Within the shaft industry, there are effectively three main categories of shafts: Aftermarket, Co-Engineered and Made For. While far from equal, each serves a distinct role in the marketplace.

So, what’s the difference and why does it matter?

To fully understand the games being played in the shaft world, it’s important to distinguish between the various classes of shafts. In speaking with a number of shaft insiders, all of whom asked that we leave their names and company affiliations off the record, we probed the underbelly of the industry and what we found frankly surprised us.

Aftermarket Shafts

Premium or Real Deal aftermarket shafts showcase a shaft manufacturer’s best technology, often utilize so-called premium materials, and are engineered to meet the expectations of touring professionals. Sold through custom fitters, dealers, and as OEM upgrades, they also carry hefty price tags which approach, and sometimes exceed, the cost of an off-the-rack driver.

As with clubheads, the manifestation of shaft technology is mostly about mitigating the weight to strength trade–off and the strategic blending of materials to create specific and unique bend profiles. Making a shaft stiffer isn’t difficult if total weight isn’t an issue, but to manufacture a shaft which is both stiffer and lighter, choice (aka costly) materials are required. This is where terms like 40T/50T high-modulus carbon fiber pre-preg join the conversation. The modulus number (in this case 40 or 50) speaks to the strength and stiffness of the graphite sheets. Those sheets are what gets wrapped around a steel mandrel to form the basic structure of a shaft.

The lighter and stronger the sheets, the more opportunity shaft designers have to manipulate and create unique bend profiles at different weights. Cheap materials simply don’t allow for the creation of something like Graphite Design’s Tour AD-IZ 50X – the company’s first X-flex 50 gram shaft in the Tour AD line. Designers further trick out bend profiles by leveraging exotic (read: even more spendy) materials like Titanium-Nickel weave, Boron, Xylon, and Nickel plating to further modify the torque, balance point and feel of the shaft.

Thin-Ply Technology (TPT), the company behind Justin Rose’s driver shaft, prices its offerings at $700, and as some of you will recall, Matrix launched its Ozik TP HD with a sticker price of $1000.

The economic concept in play is one of trickle-down demand. Consumers see tour usage as validation of quality and hey, if it’s good enough for insert tour player here it’s good enough for me.

The risk in purchasing an authentic aftermarket shaft isn’t significant, particularly if the brand doesn’t deal in co-branded or made for shafts.

CO-ENGINEERED

PINGis the only major OEM still engaged in true co-engineering of premium shafts. PING collaborates with a larger shaft OEM (e.g., UST, Fujikura, Mitsubishi Chemical) to prototype and produce shafts for a specific product launch. PING’s Co-engineered shafts don’t have the same eye-catching, sexy graphics, but strip away the paint and you’ll find the same high-modulus/low resin pre-preg and advanced technology you find in aftermarket shafts.

Consider this – The co-engineered Ping Tour 65X comes with an upcharge of $35. The Mitsubishi KuroKage TiNi (retail $250) comes with a $75 upcharge. The price difference can easily be chalked up to simple laws of supply and demand – not differences in materials or quality.

Arguably, PING tends to undersell the quality of its shafts – but then again, that’s kind of how PING rolls. The company was the first major OEM to purchase a Fujikura ENSO; a 10-camera system capable of capturing sub-millimeter shaft and clubhead information at 2000 frames per second. ENSO allows PING (and Fujikura) to discern much more than the swing and ball flight provided by launch monitors alone. ENSO captures how the shaft and head work in concert when swung by real golfers – not machines.

An OEM doesn’t typically invest in this type of technology unless it’s supremely dedicated to understanding the golf club as an entire unit, and not separate components packaged together to look like something they’re probably not. Co-Engineered may not feature familiar paint and a logo you know, but stripping those meaningless things away removes the incentive to deceive. And that brings us to the scourge of the off-the-rack club market.

The Stock Shaft

It’s absolutely dirty and fraudulent. It’s unethical and entirely misleading to the consumer.

When purchasing off-the-rack clubs, the shaft(s) which come standard are referred to as stock. Generally speaking, stock takes a one (sometimes two or three) size fits most approach, which allows less picky consumers to find something that provides a decent fit and with it, reasonable performance.

Made For shafts aren’t inherently bad or poor-quality. In fact, in some cases, they’re every bit the equal of more expensive aftermarket shafts. However, the chief problem – and the impetus for this article – is the manner in which OEMs use this category of shafts to dupe, mislead or otherwise play consumers for fools.

Speaking with a number of shaft industry insiders, there was uniform agreement that the lack of transparency is something shaft companies have used to exploit consumers – all in the name of maximizing profit. Said one source, “It’s absolutely dirty and fraudulent. It’s unethical and entirely misleading to the consumer.”

As the name implies, such shafts aren’t available from dealers; they’re made specifically for an equipment OEM – with the “winning” shaft company in any given year being the one which can work within the confined margin requirements of the club company. It’s ultimately a price point conversation – so long as the quality is good enough.

Consumers can’t know what OEMs won’t share and because stock shafts have no set definition or boundaries, OEMs are free to operate with as much (or little) conscience as they feel necessary.

Consider the following scenarios, all of which are in play on a daily basis inside the golf equipment industry.

Scenario 1– The Real Deal: In some offerings, club OEMs will use an authentic after-market shaft as its stock option. TaylorMade popularized this approach in the early 2000s with its TP line of metalwoods. TP shafts often carried an upcharge, and TaylorMade was fond of using proprietary graphics, but the shafts were the same as their aftermarket namesakes. Using real shafts cyclically falls in and out of favor with the club manufacturers. Last year some took what we’d describe as a step backward, but the on a positive front, there’s more real deal in lineups than in year’s past and most OEM’s offer a menu of authentic aftermarket shafts as no charge upgrade options. Upgrade pricing is often a factor of both the exotic-ness of the shaft and the closeness of the relationship between the shaft and club manufacturers.

Scenario 2 – “Watered Down”: In this scenario, the stock shafts often share the same name with a look similar or identical to that of the more advanced and costly aftermarket sibling. That’s the bait. The switch is the stock version is made from lesser materials (40T vs. 24T or 30T), produced with wider spec tolerances and is often higher launching and higher spinning. Often these diet versions have slightly different weights and higher torque measurements – byproducts of cheaper materials and looser tolerances that don’t quite match what you’ll find in the aftermarket lineup. Some manufacturers have tried to explain the discrepancies away by saying that different companies measure shafts differently, but the reality is that the specs are different because the shafts are different.

While the industry, in general, is reducing its use of made for, particularly in premium offerings, the practice hasn’t been discontinued entirely.

This season, Callaway paired its industry-leading Epic driver with several stock shafts, the most common of which is the Project X HZDRUS T800. The Callaway exclusive offering is painted to look nearly identical to the HZDRUS T1100, but aesthetics aside, these shafts bear little resemblance to each other, with the launch characteristics of the former falling well outside of how Project X describes the performance of its aftermarket HZRDUS lineup.

The T800 weighs 56-58 grams, has a mid-high torque rating, and is billed as mid launch. The T1100 is the lowest launching (and spinning shaft) in the HZDRUS line-up, isn’t available below 65 grams, and has a sticker price of $400. While you won’t find the T800 listed on the Project X website, it is available in “Like New” condition for $56-$80 through Callaway Pre-Owned.

The T800 is made for a golfer who would never fit into an actual T1100 or likely anything else in the HZRDUS family, but the idea is for the consumer to think he’s getting something close to what the pros play. No harm, no foul, right?

Callaway is far from alone in playing the similar name, different performance game. In recent years, Cobra has used watered down versions of Matrix, Fujikura, and MRC shafts. TaylorMade, of course, did the TP/non-TP thing. Tour Edge currently has made for versions of Graphite Design shafts in its lineup and has used made for Matrix in the past. Wilson has used made for UST shafts among others, and it wasn’t that long ago that Titleist was using For Titleist versions of popular aftermarket shafts in its lineup.

While it’s rare to see less than real deal shafts in a $500 driver, the level of deception varies between companies and releases. Nearly every OEM has engaged in similar shenanigans at one time or another, largely because, to varying degrees, everybody wins.

The majority of golfers will likely better fit into one of the weight and bend profiles offered than the model it’s designed to look like, the club manufacturer widens its margins, and shaft manufacturers benefit from the volume sales. The issue isn’t necessarily the quality or performance of the shaft itself; it’s the purposeful deception and effort to mislead consumers that reeks of questionable ethics.

Scenario 3 – $300 shaft in a $400 driver: The math doesn’t add up, but probably not for the reason you think.

Certainly, putting a shaft which comfortably sells at a premium price in a club which sells for only a couple bucks more than the shaft alone is part of the reason why Matrix finds itself buried under a mountain of financial troubles. Selling to the club OEMs for pennies on the dollar cannibalizes the value of the aftermarket shaft, which otherwise offers much more attractive margins.

That’s part of the reason why many shaft brands have developed dealer-exclusive lines.

But there’s an even more diabolical path to these fuzzy figures, and it goes something like this:

Acme shaft company agrees to produce shafts for the next hot driver release from Wayne Enterprises. Wayne doesn’t want Acme’s current top-shelf shaft. It wants something none of its competitors have. It wants next years’ shaft, and it wants it at this years’ prices. To produce a shaft within the agreed upon cost parameters, Acme uses a cheaper pre-preg (likely 30T, but possibly 24T) and perhaps allows for a bit more wiggle room in its tolerances. Wayne hypes the fact that its new driver has the unreleased real deal Acme shaft in its stock lineup. To continue this tale of deception and make a few extra bucks, Acme releases the EXACT and previously Wayne-exclusive, less-than-premium, shaft at a premium price and repeats a story consistent with Wayne’s marketing.

Consumers believe they’re buying a $400 driver with a premium shaft or they believe they’re paying fair market price for an exotic aftermarket shaft, but either way, they’re wrong. They never had a chance to be right.

Acme wins. Wayne Enterprises wins. The consumer loses.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

Scenario 4: Scrape and Paint: Sanding a finished shaft and repainting it is more cost-effective than constructing an entirely new shaft. Because market prices for pre-preg materials fluctuate, shaft companies will purchase more material than necessary if they can lock in a favorable price. This can create excess inventory, so rather than purchase new material for its next shaft, it sands and repaints the surplus inventory with new graphics while the marketing department creates an updated tech story around the “new” model to generate fresh demand.

While our source asked that we not share specifics, there exists in at least one club manufacturer’s lineup two upgrade shaft options released several years apart that differ only in their paint. One costs more than the other, but everything else, the structure, the material; they’re 100% the same. Calling attention to the fact that OEM launch and spin charts are often meaningless, despite having identical profiles – despite being exactly the same shaft – the two models are shown to have different launch and spin characteristics. Who knew paint had such an impact on ball flight?

Your new for 2017 shaft might have been manufactured in 2014. It’s like reheating week-old lasagna and selling it as garden fresh.

Scenario 5 –The Lease Special: This may be the most underhanded and insidious of the shaft cons. Rather than making shafts within the strict cost parameters set by the equipment OEM, shaft companies sometimes elect to lease their name to the OEM. The OEM in-turn contracts with an inexpensive 3rd party manufacturer to produce the shafts. The shaft company receives a royalty in return for the use of its name, but that’s the extent of its involvement with production.

The company whose name is on the shaft has no control over where or how the shaft is made – but because the name implies some level of credibility, consumers assume a level of quality and quality control that doesn’t actually exist.

On a scale of 1- buying your college term paper, this practice rates high enough to get you expelled.

All of the above illustrates exactly how much variation exists within the made for market. The consumer has very little insight into what he’s buying. Sometimes it’s nearly equivalent, sometimes it’s watered down, and sometimes it’s total garbage. You simply have no way of knowing.

Lest you think none of this matters, consider that some made for shafts are so poorly constructed that rotating the shaft just a few degrees can change the playing stiffness by a full flex or more – and that’s assuming they don’t crack when you clamp them. Good luck trying to SST PURE your way out of that.

WHAT’S GOOD?

If you’re going the premium route, companies which deal exclusively in aftermarket shafts are a good place to start. There are aren’t many in this category (Oban, VA Composites, Veylix, Accra), and with first-rate shafts come top-shelf prices.

From there, every industry insider with whom I spoke said there is a high level of trust with Mitsubishi Chemical (formerly Mitsubishi Rayon) even though it does a fair amount of business in the “made for” market. This is largely because Mitsubishi enjoys vertical integration – where it manufactures all raw materials in-house. In doing so, Mitsubishi controls every element and owns every technology involved in designing, prototyping and producing golf shafts.

Vertical integration also allows Mitsubishi to more effectively manage inventory levels and be more responsive to changes in consumer demand because it never has to wait for a 3rd party supplier.

It’s the difference between owning the farm and buying your meat at the local grocery store.

Other recognized brands (Fujikura, Aldila, Graphite Design, Project X, and UST,) all have an established presence on professional tours and produce first-class, high-performing shafts. However, each has dabbled in the “made for” game to varying degrees, which means each has been benefited from fostering some level of consumer ignorance.

WHERE DO WE GO NOW?

Golfers may be the smartest dumb people in the world. The average golfer household income is just over $100k/year – which is more than twice the figure for non-golfers. I’m aware income doesn’t necessarily correlate to intelligence, but as a collective group, we fail to use and apply basic skills of reasoning and analysis. Vanity, lack of access to unbiased information, and questionable industry practices all contribute to this reality.

Some of that can change, while other pieces will continue to present a challenge. Advanced systems like ENSO can quantify how a shaft/head combination reacts to individual swings. Some OEMs are exploring shaft constructions to help promote (or correct) slices and hooks. PING is building algorithms to quantify how a shaft feels. The industry is progressing, but the degree to which it can will be limited until we’re willing to confront some fundamental issues surrounding truth, ethics, and integrity.

If there’s a moral to this story, it’s the importance of working with a qualified fitter to determine an optimal shaft/head combination. Beyond that, I’d love to see a requirement that each shaft include an ingredient list – not unlike what we see in the food and beverage industry. While that’s unlikely to happen, the fundamental question is this: Shouldn’t consumers have a right to know what it is they’re purchasing?

After all, transparency only hurts those with something to hide.

Support Unbiased Testing.

Our job is your game.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS

Chris Nickel

Chris is a self-diagnosed equipment and golf junkie, and he's proud of it. When he's not coaching the local high school and middle school golf teams, he's probably on the range or trying to keep up with his wife and seven beautiful daughters.
Chris is based out of Fort Collins, CO and his neighbors believe long brown boxes are simply part of his porch decor.
"Isn't it funny? The truth just sounds different."

Brad

Lee L

1 year ago

I have experienced this first hand in the last 2 years with my drivers. For a couple years I was hitting an SLDR with an aftermarket FUEL 70 shaft. Shaft was amazing, performed just as the specs suggested. I then got a Callaway XR 15 pro driver. This had a “designed with” project x LZ stuff shaft in it. The marketing was that Project x and Callaway designed the shaft together to fit the specs of who would be using a tour level driver. This shaft was also GREAT! Performed just as well as the aftermarket FUEL. This Christmas I was given an M1 with a KuroKage TiNi stock shaft. This shaft was a total embarrassment. Launched a million miles high and spin was rediculous (I have a 110-115 SS). So, I purchased a Accra ST70, and MAN…there is no going back now. The quality and consistency is SO different. On the monitor, yes, but more importantly in the course.

GilB

Ron

1 year ago

For me, I have not experienced significant benefit from driver fittings. I consider myself a shaft junkie and spend hours on a launch monitor comparing numerous shafts, most recently with my new Rogue head. Aftermarket shafts I own come from Accra, Mitsubishi, Aldila and Diamante. After several hours of comparison and plotting data including carry distance, spin, launch angle, dispersion and ball speed on my own in addition to a fitting session at a well known national club fitter I discovered that the stock Aldila shaft performed as well as any aftermarket shaft for me.

DaveMac

1 year ago

I see Callaway are at it again with their marketing for the European release of the new XR Speed driver. They describe their watered down T 800 as “Ultra Premium” and reference the fact this is the same shaft that comes fitted to the more expensive Epic.
This must be a breach of advertising guidelines.

I don’t know if I agree with some of the comments by some people when they say you have to match the shaft to the head to be a single working unit, some what like Ping does. If that were the case how do these pros like DJ, Rory, Speith, Bubba etc etc keep using the same ole beat up shaft(not a new one of the same model) for years and years but keep changing the heads and don’t seem to have too many problems doing it.

Eggs

1 year ago

Fabulous Article, from my fellow Colorado golfer. I knew for years that the club manufacturing companies were and are ripping off Joe public golfer. I two would buy the latest and greatest new driver. No more keeping my Ping G30 head and may try some new shafts.
Dilly Dilly

David Kristensen

Tommy

2 years ago

I’ve been “fitted” so many times it makes my head spin and, like others have said, the results and recommendations have been so wildly different that I tend to trust their skill less than I trust the integrity of the shaft makers. I believe that they’re trying to do their best and are generally a committed bunch, but that doesn’t mean they all know what they’re doing, just like all doctors aren’t the same. Some people are good at what they do, and some aren’t. The thing that discourages me is that I’ve always gone to the “top” guys in the area that everyone raves about. I’m talking about “WILDLY” different recommendations….like hey, I can take a guess too, if that’s what we’re doing here. The problem is that it’s kind of and expensive exercise and once you’ve been burned a few times, you want to give up. The “fitting” industry isn’t doing themselves any favors in this big push to get everyone fitted, as if you won’t get it off the ground if you don’t. My cap has been the same for thirty years (low) and I never hit it any different, regardless what I have in my hand. A shaft won’t fix my misses, nor make my good shots any better…usually.

Well, fitting is sometimes very subjective but the actual “build to match the fit” is what is critical. I was interviewed by Chris for this article and he did a great job. I have seen it all in 20+ years in the industry…actually every one of his scenarios.

BUT…if your fitter truly builds what they fit you to, you should get significant improvement. Shafts are SO important, you must get them fit AND built for you.

Jean Ventura

2 years ago

The whole industry is smoke and mirrors. Like an idiot I have spent the last 4 years spending silly sums of money in the hope that the next iteration of “new technology” will be the difference. There is no way that the next “hottest face”, year in year out, can yield the marketed results, we all buy into this in the vain hope the new kit will miraculously fix our problems.

Unfortunately it is spending behaviour like mine and many others that is driving this trend. The message that I took from this article is that we the consumers need to be more savvy.

The eye opener for me was 2 months ago when I got to swing a real-deal Hzrdus T1100 and I watched my margin for error narrow significantly. This week I got to swing an Aldila X-torsion black mamba and the result was much the same. The difference between these premium shafts and my stock Rogue Max 65S was something to behold.

The one thing that really needs to be covered is club fitting. I have had far more negative experiences in this endeavour than positives. It is incredibly just how often an off-the-shelf set of clubs was just “perfect” for me. Recently I was told by a very popular club fitting chain that the X100 was old tech and that the best results have been achieved with the steelfiber shafts. This is without anyone even seeing me swing a club. I fear that most fittings are being driven by sales targets and not a genuine desire to see the golfer properly fitted.

I now have a genuine mistrust for most retailers/fitters. This carpetbaggery must end

Kenneth Cole

Wayne Hall

2 years ago

Well done. I started about 6 years ago getting really good shafts Installed by a Master Club Fitter to optimize my golf clubs. I would recommend it to anyone who is tired of playing these games and wants to get off the “new Club Merry Go Round”. The right shaft fit to your own specs make a huge performance difference. Call Trevor Sauntry @ Impact Golf to find out why.

Alan

2 years ago

I made a comment yesterday and would just like to amplify a bit more that this well written piece is a tempest in a tea pot IMHO.
So, let’s continue with the HZRDUS “real” T1100 comparison to the “rip off” T800 that has Tony so worked up.

Do you really think that True Temper/Project X wants to be part of a scam and upset customers ??? question value ??? and negatively impact brand loyalty ????The bottom line is that the two Hzrdus models are made the same way.made

The composite material for both are sourced from Toray Company, Japan. One prepeg is 80T and the other is 110 T (I am sure you can figure out which goes in which shaft)

They are both premium quality materials and the strength of one is slightly higher than the other. HIGHER STRENGTH DOES NOT IMPLY BETTER, it just means in order to build a shaft with particular set of characteristics you can use less of the higher strength material and still reach your design objectives. ( It keeps the weight down.)

The T1100 is hand made in Ca. By hand made a skilled workers places the layers of material on a mandrel builds up the shaft. So that is hand crafted. The T 800 is made in China and is manufactured by CNC machinery. They are both highly quality controlled and rejects in both productions from time to time is not unusual.

If you know anything about economics, then the productivity of a machine/automated process coupled with the salary costs in China make the T800 a lot less expensive than a hand made counterpart by a USA worker.

I totally reject the crap argument that you cannot properly spline a T 800 or its measurements are suspect.
Let me digress for one moment. My friends a Fujikura will tell you up frony that their “made for Speeders, ie. 565 and 665, etc. measured almost identically to the real deal after market 561 and 651. If you can tell the difference between 2 or 3 grams and 0.3 degrees of torque you belong on the big tour.

So now lets get back to my bet and test from yesterday. All paint and identification has been removed from the shafts. your perception of which shaft you like better will be based on your actual performance and subjective feedback. Lets sat you have a 65 gram T 800 in 6.0 flex in your left hand and a T 1100 YELLOW 63 gram 6.0 flex in your right hand. After a few alternating shots you say one of them feels a bit too whippy or loose or the trajectory is too high, etc. AND YOU ARE GIVEN A 6.5 FLEX IN THAT MODEL AND THEN YOU SAY “WOW’ THIS IS PERFECT,

HOW ARE GOING TO FEEL IF YOU ARE TOLD YOU JUST SELECTED THE “THE RIP OFF T800”

Double blind test like this are a bitch because they remove the preconceived notions that are stuck between most golfers ears.
If you want to say your friends that your shaft is hand made and that makes you a better player , so be it. The game is tough enough and we should all try to enjoy it.

Alan – What you’re missing here is that it’s not primarily an issue of performance. Many “made for” shafts will perform adequately (or even optimally) for consumers. The point is, the practice is deceptive. Why else do the T800 and T1100 look nearly identical? The intent, I believe, is clear. Both use Torray pre-preg, but the constructions are different. The specs are different. The player profile is most certainly different. Toyota/Lexus, Acura/Honda, etc. aren’t perfect analogies – but the point remains, why pass off a base model Toyota Corolla as a premium ES 350? Only if there’s intent to deceive and/or financial incentive to do so.

With Fujikura, the fact an average player can’t presumably tell the difference in a couple grams and a couple tenths of torque, again isn’t the point. This may speak to Fuji’s ability to keep specs reasonably consistent, but it’s disingenuous nonetheless.

I will say this about Fujikura, they are always forward about what you’re getting. They will re-paint a shaft, but those that i have talked to will say that they wont’ re-paint something that’s old and present it as new, and they won’t paint something the same or nearly the same if it’s not.> Project X has done this with their HZRDUS line and it’s impossible to tell what you’re getting. They say the “tour versions” are black with the proper color lettering – yet some of the OEM versions are like that too. In addition, they have the T800/T1100 paintjobs nearly identical, as well as the Handcrafted and Non Handcrafted versions of shafts looking identical, minus the Handcrafted stamp. Small differences like that make me more apt to say there’s a shady side to it. That’s one of the reason fuji doesn’t do that. When you buy a shaft from them, that’s the shaft. PX says “the HC and nonHC versions are the same, it’s just how they’re built”> Well then why spend $300 on a shaft when you can get one for $50 that’s the same.

Alan – as for why TT/PX or any other shaft brand would risk negatively impacting their brands by engaging in less than transparent practices in the made for market – the answer is painfully simple:

Without the OEM business (where high margins and price points drive nearly every decision) they have no business. They can’t afford engineers and R&D, and they close the doors.

That’s no overstatement. We’re talking about companies who give product away to tour pros, and whose aftermarket business is absolutely minimal compared to the OEM market. This is true for nearly every shaft manufacturer.

Large shaft companies have +/- 8 customers (the big to big-ish golf companies).

One of the shaft companies I spoke with after the article published suggested it was a battle with OEMs. They want the made for shafts to look nothing like an aftermarket shaft, the OEMs want them to look identical (and in some cases that still happens). You negotiate back and forth and what you often get is ‘looks a lot like, but not absolutely identical’. That’s the way it is because if a shaft company loses any significant amount of OEM business and you’re basically out of business.

Case in point, Matrix lost TaylorMade and is now struggling to stay afloat.

So again, while made for quality can vary significantly, it’s the intent to mislead and dupe that’s the issue. And because the consumer NEVER knows what he’s actually getting, you actually have no way of knowing what the quality actually is.

If the quality is really what the industry wants you to believe, why can’t it stand on its own? Why is there not, for example, a HZRDUS T800 in PX’s lineup?

Same with Fujikura – why isn’t the made for stuff listed on its website? If the quality is there, and it fits golfers well, why not sell it to the consumer. The reality is that made for is engineered to a price point and is seldom up to any given company’s aftermarket standard.

It might be good…just not good enough.

And through all of your ranting, you neglect that this is about far more than the T800. It’s nearly every manufacturer and more to the point, it’s nearly every manufacturer trading on consumer ignorance.

Finally, not for anything, I’m on the extreme end of the shaft fitting spectrum, so yeah, T800 would be crap for me. FWIW, the yellow disagrees with me too.

Ultimately, I’m all for shafts that fit regardless of cost, but I’m also all for knowing what that shaft really is – and I certainly want it to be good enough that the actual manufacturer isn’t ashamed to list it on its website.

Joe Golfer

9 months ago

Excellently said, Tony.
A cheaper “made for” or other shaft may actually work better for some golfers, but like you said, the maker should be willing to put the real specs up on their website, and they should inform the customer of what they are getting.
Also, it’s not just the specs being different. It is the consistency, as mentioned in the article, especially in those shafts in which the brand name is leased. I’ve seen videos in which the exact same model and flex of a big name OEM shaft are measured and can have a flex difference of 15 cpm. That’s essentially a flex and a half difference, but the shaft designation says the shafts are the same flex as each other. Same brand, model, and flex listing on the shaft.

10shot

2 years ago

Well written Alan and true. The blind test is the best, I also make sure to have the client hit in different conditions, heat/ cool, wet, dry ect. I have found this matters to tournament player that play in the rain, me I’ll watch from my recliner. cheers

Frank Cruz

2 years ago

Most people are ignoring that most shafts will NOT work or feel the same from one head to the next. Having a preferred shaft in one driver does not ensure anything when ordering the same shaft for a new (different) head. OEM shafts have been tested with a given head and their performance is predictable, “upgrading” to a premium shaft guarantees very little.

George Johnson

Well of course not, but you should also be able to pickup up 2 or 3 or 5 of the same made for shaft and have the actual specs be nearly identical from sample to sample. That’s far from always the case with made for.

In some cases, simply adjusting the loft (and realigning the shaft) can change the playing flex by more than a flex. So yeah…it does matter.

Blake

Tommy Hughes

2 years ago

First id like to say THATS WHY YOU GO PING TOUR SHAFTS!! Second I’d like to say it is useful to know what your getting and what it’s made of for reasons like Callaway completely screwing its customers with the epic and hzrdous shaft series, because what they put in there is a cheap “knockoff” shaft that performs much different then how it’s promoted. But you should break 70’s before caring about this shit

George Johnson

Kanoito

2 years ago

What about the Adams Superfast 12LS? It was recommended to me as the real deal Fubuki alpha.
And if I recall correctly, the shaft alone was close to the retail price of the whole driver.
Who passed on the profits? Adams or Mitsubishi?

Gordon

2 years ago

Good article, and sadly a lot of the clubs are unknowns when it comes to specs. This is why good builders/fitters frequency their shafts and organize based on that rather than what the sticker says. Get a fitter you can trust and ask a lot of questions.

Also Srixon (SRI) owns Miyazaki Shafts and produces their shafts specifically for models like Ping. XXIO also does the same.

Hey Guys and Gals –
Thought I’d weigh in on Chris’ great article. His article is spot-on in almost every case, and highlight issues a few of us have had a had time doing so for obvious reasons…I’m going to give you more info than you probably want…but consider this a “design primer” from a Kat who has quite a few Tour wins.

First, let me address the issue of shaft spec standardization. Yup…there is none, never will be. I was part of a small team in the ’90s along with Howard Butler at True Temper, Kim Braley then at Royal Precision, a couple others who’s names I forget and a facilitator. Our goal was to develop ASTM standards for Flex (Howard), Frequency (Kim), torque (myself) plus the other Kats who had club length, etc. We wanted to implement ASTM standards which is the norm in practically every manufacturing co. in the US…or at least it was then.

We had some pretty rigid guidelines set down by the ASTM Committee and after a few revisions based on their feedback, we were ready to announce our standards so our facilitator made the calls and set-up a meeting to get everyone’s buy-in. We basically had created what we thought were a group of testing protocols that were fair, didn’t expose different companies’…aaaa…I’ll call it “creative manipulations” of some basic bench tests. A lot of the companies (OEM and other shaft companies) simply told us we were crazy and had zero interest…”we do it our way and it’s the correct way…”. Of those who did show up, it was like we had insulted their Moms….errr… I mean integrity. What a confrontation we had. It got so bad, we all just shut up and let the Big Boys roar. It was indeed quite entertaining after a bit as they didn’t know we had already measured all their product and knew who was taking “creative license” for their reporting to the public. It really did get boisterous and some tempers did fly off the handle.

So, after a couple more attempts.. we gave up. Heck if you can’t even get some reasonable intelligent, seasoned equipment experts (who still thought there was this measurable phenom called the flex or kick POINT…no such thing…I can enlighten anyone on this later…) to even agree on a WEIGHT measurement, or something as simple as club length – well we knew then we had wasted our time.

OK on to After-Market shafts.

Chris did a great job here as well but there’s a couple other points that I can add.

Along with the bend profiles <a distribution of stiffness that is critical in understanding performance parameters; he was 100% correct in mentioning the strength of the material and how they get more expensive as they get stronger. But truthfully, the “strength” is predicated on a few variables:
1. Fiber tensile strength – the amount of force that it takes to break a fiber .
2. Fiber modulus – how much a fiber stretches under a known load.
THIS fiber spec is what causes fibers/materials to cost more as manufacturing a higher modulus requires a lot more heat over a slower period of time to increase this attribute (the didn’t mention a few critical design features.
3. Ratios of fiber to resin/material , and ratios of hi vs. mid vs. low tensile and modulus properties w/in a given design.

You see, some shaft companies extoll the virtues of their shafts using say a majority of the hi modulus material when in reality it can be a very minor component but they’ll still sell that aspect for the big bucks…even OVER $3000 in Japan! Fact is there is NO shaft that is completely constructed of super hi-mod material. If so, or the material was incorrectly placed, the shaft would snap immediately. Hi quality, premium shafts use a variety of materials (including glass, sometimes even painted black….hmmm….wonder why… on the really low-end shafts).

Moving on, it’s been a fad on and off for a while to talk about/market shafts using “thin ply technology” as the new thing w/ TPT being the latest. The truth is (w/ not blowing my own horn), I started that back in the ’90s and used some pretty creative combinations of materials w/ the lightest, thinnest materials the suppliers could make – heck i was driving them crazy – but the result was Grafalloy’s ProLite. Not a bad shaft and it was only 35-40% hi-mod depending on flex.

Chris’ brief on stock shafts is absolutely right on. i can go further by saying it’s more prevalent than he alluded to. Even a few aftermarket shafts are produced this way. I know…I recently fired a Chinese shaft supplier who engaged in this and other “schemes” put forth by Chris. I’ve been building my co. using one critical, but most times over-looked, moral compass – telling the truth. wow. what a concept.

But make no mistake about it. The big boys set the acceptable price range and the shaft, head and grip folks MUST adhere to those confines ++ or lose their business. A lot of business. Sorry, I’m not interested. Nor in telling half-truths as this entire article articulates.

Finally, Chris’ “if there’s moral to this story…” statement is 1000% right the heck on! And listing the materials (and %s…) is something probably no company would do…but he’s gotten me thinking. I’ve got nothing to hide.

Uhit

2 years ago

Thank you for your contribution to this very interesting theme.
I have read (and seen on youtube) some informations about your XCaliber shafts, but did´nt find it easy to try, and to buy one.
Where can I (as someone who lives in Europe) try and buy some of your shafts?
It would be nice, if you could establish something like a shop with paypal option, or a amazon, or ebay store, to make it a touch more convenient for people outside the USA – Thanks!

Brian Aughe

2 years ago

There is a new website under the works and after the first of the year you will be able to order shafts directly from the website. Plus some interesting new models are in the way. I cant wait to hit them

Robin – Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I know asking for that level of transparency might be a big ask, but I think at least we’re advancing the conversation now. In terms of an “ingredient list”, I know Veylix does provide more specs than most both on the shaft itself and on its website. Getting OEMs to agree to anything is an onerous task (as you already discussed) – but I’d like to think we could start somewhere (materials, % of different materials, etc.) –

Paul Wammer

2 years ago

I was a fitter for years. And always the question came up about upcharge shafts. You could always go to the shaft website and show them the specs. And then go to the club website and show them the specs on the same “supposed “ shaft. They were always different. But at least you could see why. Aftermarket shaft regularity have a 3 inch parallel section on the tip. Shafts for clubs often had a 4 inch parallel section. So the torque was higher. Doesn’t mean it’s bad. But is it right for the golfer? No standards requires a lot of knowledge.

Artie1

MikeyB

2 years ago

Uh-oh. NOW you’ve done it. The curtain has officially been pulled back. We already knew lofts were being jacked on irons, as well as being made longer. We know that COR #’s were ‘hotter’ on fairways since there wasn’t the intense scrutiny on 5w and 7w than the flagship drivers.
There was always the belief that the pros had ‘stuff’ even your local club fitter couldn’t get, and that all companies needed to do was slap ‘tour’ on anything and 15+ handicappers would snap it up, trying to buy a game.
The head of Arthur Extreme was labelled a heretic years ago, when he claimed the difference between the $100 shaft and $500 shaft was $5-10 in materials.
Take the Aldila Rogue. Lots of people swear by it as a great driver shaft.So was that the 95 MSI for $285 OR the ‘Limited Tour’ 120 MSI for a mere $600? The 95 is 68g 3.6 torque, the 120 is 62g 3.7 torque. Seemingly, almost identical shafts. So why is one $300 more than the other? Also,why are there no specs on the Aldila site for the 120?

Even odder is the Aldila Xtorsion Copper. The Aldila site lists no shaft weights OR torque numbers for the product. WTF guys?

So in the end, exactly HOW does the weekend warrior KNOW that the $350 he just dropped on an aftermarket ‘uber shaft’ is actually the real deal, and not a ‘softer’ big box store version?

In short – you buy it from an authorized dealer for that manufacturer. Not from eBay, not from the guy down the street – from the manufacturer directly, or as close as you can get. Most shafts have a coding on it that will tell you the shaft run, or the serial number and you can call the manufacturer directly and find out out if what you have is authentic. I’ve had the very sad and very tough job a few times, telling clients who brought me outside components to assemble, that they have a fake on their hands. They didn’t pay full price, but spilling $180 or more for a “$350” shaft that turns out to be fake is a hard pill to swallow.

It’s always a volume game right? What’s $10? Sell 100K units and it’s a million bucks.

And lets not forget that OEMs aren’t trying to break even on the shaft, it’s a margin play. The more they can shave off their cost, the more they make. They’re not dropping prices when they use cheaper components.

Ben Marchio

Scott Smith

Jeremy

2 years ago

A couple of points:

1. Yes Callaway was probably trying to fool some people into thinking that the T1100 was the T800 or very similar to it, but the overwhelming number of golfers who even had the faintest idea what a T1100 was (a small percentage) would certainly have known it was way different than the T800, especially after hitting both of them. Doesn’t entirely justify what Callaway did, but I doubt it fooled many.

2. Part of this whole problem is golfers over and over playing shafts way too stiff for them and then ripping the performance of the club. OEMs make made-for shafts that are underflexed to help the average golfer.

3. Ping’s stock shafts are great. I believe their recent Tour shafts are essentially UST Chrome Elements shafts – a great shaft. My question is why Ping just doesn’t label it an Elements? It would benefit their sales if people knew the Tour 65 was an exotic shaft. UST makes out nicely. They get the Ping sale and their labeled shafts don’t get hurt in the primary or secondary market.

4. I love Ping. Will play their clubs for life in my entire bag even if something else might be better here and there.

Answer to 3 – PING’s not really interested in telling a shaft story. As Chris said, it’s part of the entire product for them.

Along with Fujikura, PING is leveraging ENSO to do some pretty amazing research that will hopefully lead to better shaft fitting and maybe even some predictive stuff as well as methods to quantify what the golfer is feeling.

Frank Sallee

2 years ago

If any proof is needed try two drivers with the exact same shaft and all the specs the same (head,shaft & grip) then see if the results aren’t different.
If you find a shaft and head combination you love you better marry it and don’t let anyone else sleep with it??

Scotty Michaels

Craig Auer

George Rodriguez

2 years ago

Absolutely correct ! Fitters won’t give you the shaft you were fitted on the launch monitor . You end up getting same brand , but a shaft that is different . Some times they work , but most of the time don’t fit you !

R daniels

2 years ago

I still play an old driver, based on it fits my swing to a tee. Was “made for callaway” about 20 yrs ago. Can’t find anything new that gives me the same feel or reaction from the ball. This article was very well written and informative. Confusing me even more on trying to find an updated technology so I can take advantage of bigger heads and sweet spots. And I get absolutely no co-operation callaway. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

Steve Cookson

Gavin Aylward

2 years ago

I find that with the Driver l liken it to a car, the car body being the Driver Head & the Engine being the Shaft. It doesn’t realt matter what body shape you drive eg The Driver Head, its more about what Engine you have eg the Shaft, you need the correct weight, Flex and Torque to Drive the body. I personally use Basileus Shafts made in Japan, I am 64 and put it out to 230 to 250 on the fly everyday.

David W

2 years ago

I don’t know if it’s a top quality shaft or not, all I know is that I couldn’t get the ball up in the air with the stock shaft in my 2016 M1 with the weight all the way back. I bought a Matrix white tie 60 and now I’m launching high and long with a nice draw.

David W

Chris Stewart

2 years ago

I have Matrix MFS (newer version) White Tie 70 x-stiff in my driver, 2016 M2 and 3 wood, Aeroburner TP and also in my Aeroburner TP hybrid, H4 White Tie x-stiff. These shafts made all the difference in the world in my woods and hybrids! My carry yardage with my driver increased almost 35 yards over the stock Fujikura Pro shaft and that’s real talk! I thought it was my swing but happened across a used Aeroburner TP driver in Edwin Watts and hit it on the launch monitor and was amazed at the carry distance I was seeing. I’d never thought much about shafts until then. Now all my shafts are “for me” and to anyone spending the money on a new club or iron set, take the time and hit everything with all the shaft options till you are happy with the results! There are to many shaft and had options available for anyone to have to settle for an off the shelf set!

Benjamin Tetz

2 years ago

If PING cares so much about the shaft. Why does its hosel adjustment system still allow the player to change the spine of the shaft to adjust the loft? Unlike Callaway that uses a COG system in which the spine stays the same through the adjustment? MyGolf SpyPING GolfCallaway Golf

Austin Kreger

2 years ago

The article goes on to talk about Ping being one of the OEM’s that uses higher quality shafts as the stock options. You shouldn’t have to worry about a high quality shaft playing much differently based on the spine position. The junk you find in some of the other OEM stock shaft options (such as callaway) probably need that different style adjustment in the tip because an alteration of the spine position would cause havoc with that particular shaft.

Benjamin Tetz

Steve

2 years ago

Ping is an engineering company first. The reason they let you spin three shaft is because it has so little effect on the performance it doesn’t matter. Callaway does it that so the grip doesn’t move and face angle doesn’t change. Their draw setting is actually upright not closed.

Donn Rutkoff

2 years ago

I learned this 20 years ago. And In my spare time I like to fool around with 2nd hand equipment to learn what works for me. But when I started, to begin, I had great results 20 yrs ago when I got into the game, with a guy called DOT golf in San Leandro, CA, (near Oakland) who made me a low price set of irons on good ole Paragon shafts.

I am constantly surprised by meeting golfers,some very good, who know little about their clubs.

My happiness now is called Recoil. I love them. And I don’t see “Recoil made for”. I only see Recoil shafts that are listed on the UST website. So I hope I can safely assume that all Recoils are made to the same degree of specs? No “almost the same” for a different brand OEM?. But I wonder Do they make or collaborate with Ping tho? I would like to hear from people about Recoils. I am a high handicapper for now, and reg flex. But I can’t imagine any reg flex shaft could be much better.

John

Ray

2 years ago

I also was curious why the Miyazaki shaft was left out of the article. Especially the added feature they offer called the International Flex Code. If you look at the website it breaks down the shaft profile according to the numbers in the code. It is a small amount of information, but more than you’ll find on most sites.
I recently purchased a Srixon 565 and tested several setups on used clubs before settling on a shft with the code 5554. Nice mid launch, mid spin for ME.
I was hoping you could add a little more information on this code and the corresponding numbers.
Thank you for a very good article and your focus on keeping us consumers informed. Well done.

Gre

Dave

2 years ago

Yes bought a 5 wood epic with a HZRDS shaft . The worst shaft I’ve ever had, and I’m to blame bought it on line from very good company so I thought. When I discussed this with them they said I should have gotten fitted. Duh. No kidding. Never again. Great article and a real eye opener for the average consumer. Thanks for this you sure opened my eyes.

Randy Blankenship

2 years ago

I loved reading the article. However I have to ask does this really matter to the amateur golfer? I know shafts matter, I had the HZRDS stiff flex 55 gram shaft in my epic driver and wasn’t really getting along with it. So I tried out a heavier shaft and found it made a significant difference in feel (I got the aldila tour max stiff 65 gram shaft from callaway).

MyGolfSpy

Uhit

2 years ago

Now you got me, and you received my 1. donation – to honor the work on MGS.

Jon

2 years ago

I think your article exposes a lot of what is going on in the industry. As a coach it has been very frustrating. Misleading people should be exposed. You mentioned TPT in this article and I think that you should take an independent look at them and what they are doing. I beleuve you will find that they are only out there to produce the best performing shafts on the market. There is no misleading on anything they do. They are an open book and have produced everything I have ask from them so far. No gimmicks. No games. Just shafts that are what they say they are.

Just take a look and see for yourself. They should not be associated with what you wrote in this article.

Jason A

2 years ago

I have not been bothered much about golf brands, but this article makes me reflect on my on course findings:

Cleveland: Predicable and forgiving. I checked detailed markings, and the MRC Fubuki shaft was a real deal.

Ping: Feel among best i have used. So stable. Own brand shafts, in fairway wood and hybrid.

Callaway: I really like their hybrid head, but shaft is weak compared to others I’ve used. “Sloppy” and dull (i.e. lots of resin). Problem is re-shafting correctly is costly and pain vs. getting right first time.

Billy Galway

George P

2 years ago

Hey Tony / Chris:
What’s the story with the PX HZRDUS Yellow 75g in the PING G400 Driver? I custom ordered the G400 with this shaft in 5.5 flex and it arrived with the black shaft with yellow “HZRDUS” lettering and the these specs within the logo (5.5, 76g, low spin, 2.9), BUT…..it DOES NOT have the “Handcrafted Prototype, San Diego CA” logo just below the grip like most HZRDUS shafts I’ve seen. It’s obviously not the “Handcrafted” version because the tag I received from the PING factory clearly states “shaft Made in China”…..so what can you tell me about this shaft, and why would PING do this given that they’re one of the best out there in terms of “honesty”?!? By the way, I’m in Winnipeg, MB, Canada, and I paid a $110 upgrade for this shaft.
Please advise. THANKS!

JB

2 years ago

Every OEM uses that same Hzrdus shaft that is black with yellow lettering. Cobra, and TM for sure as I’ve tried that exact paint colored Hzrdus shaft in both. I thought it was the new color scheme of the shaft, but it isn’t.

I believe it is more due to Project X. As mentioned above, why offer a $400 hand crafted shaft in a $500 driver. It doesn’t make sense, and Project X would lose so much money in their bottom line, a lot like Matrix shafts have done.

xjohnx

2 years ago

That shaft is the same shaft as the yellow one it’s just not “hand crafted” They’re mass produced making them cost less to make. You just may find a slightly higher variance in the end product compared to the more strict HC models.

The PX Yellow in the PING (and you’ll see it in one more lineup soon) is kind of a unique case. The entire aftermarket HZRDUS lineup is hand-rolled and labor intensive. What PING offers is a machine-rolled version. The materials are the same, the profile is the same, it just doesn’t get the literal hands-on attention that the Handcrafted version gets.

Uhit

2 years ago

Interesting question.
However, I tested this shaft in conjunction with a M1 440, and it was maybe the best shaft I ever tried (including after-market shafts). I had hit my personal best (well over 300 yards) with this combo. Thus, in this case, I think you don´t have to worry in regard of quality.

George P

2 years ago

Good point. I like the shaft. Gives me great distance with tight dispersion. Thanks for the info.

C

2 years ago

Why is Ping’s HZRDUS being defended but not any of the other OEM’s? There’s been a lot of Ping articles lately and protection thrown their way, seeing more and more bias here. Less objective towards their product.

Ron

2 years ago

C – maybe it’s because Ping isn’t being deceptive?

Jay

2 years ago

You got a real HZRDUS yellow, just not the premium Hand-crafted version. The hand-crafted version would be more than a $110 upcharge

Doug

2 years ago

This is a great article. I have heard custom club fitters talk about not trusting the shafts you get with the off the shelf drivers and this helps explain the situation. Do you have any insights into the non Ping OEM shafts that they now offer with the G400 Driver?. such as the HZRDUS Yellow. Are those “real” HZRDUS Yellow shafts or which one of your scenarios so these fall it.

The PX Yellow in the PING (and you’ll see it in one more lineup soon) is kind of a unique case. The entire aftermarket HZRDUS lineup is hand-rolled and labor intensive. What PING offers is a machine-rolled version. The materials are the same, the profile is the same, it just doesn’t get the literal hands-on attention that the Handcrafted version gets.

Darren Morris

Stephen Pearcy

2 years ago

Great Article. I don’t have much sympathy for the consumer who buys new clubs every 6 months because they are longer. I would seem to me that it would be in the best interest of the club manufacturer to use a stock shaft that doesn’t inhibit the performance of the club head. As for the add-on custom shafts…….

Rob

gunmetal

2 years ago

I’ve held dealer accounts with nearly every brand mentioned up there and I couldn’t agree more with this article. I used to rail on True Temper and UST for releasing a watered down version of “insert here” as a made for because it made it nearly impossible for me to justify a $300 asking price for a shaft that looked the exact same as the made for, despite the fact that it was made from different materials and had different playing characteristics. Probably why Accra was my best selling shaft – by far.

I didn’t know about the re-sanding of shafts. I’m fine with that because it doesn’t change performance. What is egregious is claiming different performance metrics. That’s pretty terrible.

Regis

2 years ago

Over the years I’ve built up an inventory of real aftermarket shafts. I almost never care what shaft comes stock with a new driver/fairway. It almost never ends up in play for more than a round or two. A solution might be for manufacturers to offer a “no shaft” option (at a reduced price) when they introduce a new flagship product. The overwhelming majority of golfers are totally happy with their stock shafts. If they believe they got a real deal Matrix, Fuji, or other name shaft, it’s not a big deal. Most don’t know or care.

Bob

2 years ago

I am with you on this one. I rarely pay attention to what shaft comes in a stock driver I have several real aftermarket OEM shafts that I simply move from one driver to another. Which is also why I am grateful that the Major OEM’s don’t change the adjustable tips very often.

Steve S

2 years ago

I guess the world was a lot simpler when all the shafts were steel. The fact that a graphite shaft has different characteristics based on orientation could really screw you up when using an adjustable head.

It would also be nice to be able to OBJECTIVELY evaluate the “stock” shafts against the upgrades. I’ll bet most golfers with driver swing speeds between 85-95mph(which is probably the majority) won’t see a significant difference in performance.

Steve S

Brandon Berry

Andy Brumer

2 years ago

If you really want to talk about absence of standard and even fraud, consider the phrases used in the article “qualified club fitter. “ Any given Golfer going to five such “fitters” will be most likely fit with five different shafts. There’s more art than science to all of this. Trial and error and using what works for you whether stock or aftermarket is the only solution.

Steve S

2 years ago

Andy, exactly! It’s been my argument about fitters AND coaches. Truth be known a “real” fitting should probably be done 3 times on 3 different days. Why? Because if you get fit on a REALLY good OR bad day it might be a wrong fit for you “normal” day.

A “qualified” coach is one that actually helps you. Haven’t found one, yet. So far my biggest improvement has come from videoing my swing and making adjustments.

Greggytees

2 years ago

Andy/Steve S— cannot agree more w/ you guys. Glad some one said it. My time line in fitting is just about as you described it should be. 2 one hr sessions. Hit for 15 minutes, discuss stuff for 10 minutes, I mean everything. Most over looked item is how does it really feel now and then how this evening 6 hrs later.
There are 13 different elements to custom fit each golfer–period. And this does not get done hitting into a net in half an hour. Been doing this for a long long time. Thanks guys!!

Andy – That’s an entirely different conversation and one certainly worth exploring. I guess the question is “What constitutes a quality fitting?” – Like other topics, there’d be a wide range of answers and if anything, I’d argue the combination of art and science is starting to lean more heavily toward the science side. Even nebulous terms like “feel” are starting to be quantified.

Brian Jay Murra

xjohnx

2 years ago

I have a few mixed opinions here. First and foremost though, this is a great article and I’m amazed and disgusted with some of what I’ve read. Always impressed with these articles.

However, I think the part about “made for” shafts is slightly misleading and even contradicts the MGS philosophy slightly. You guys always test stock shafts because that’s what the majority of people buy. You don’t mention once (at least not directly) that these stock shafts fit the same majority much better off the rack than any of the “real deal” versions ever would. Your T800/T1100 reference almost vilifies Callaway and suggests they’re ripping off every golfer that buys a T800 when in reality they couldn’t get a T1100 of the ground. FWIW, the Epic and T800 was released months before the T1100 at retail and I the color scheme also just fit the Epic well. I think it’s a stretch to suggest Callaway wants the average golfer to think the T800 is the same as the T1100 when most people bought it without knowing what a T1100 was, and most probably still don’t.

I believe Chris clearly stated that in many cases the stock shaft performs very well – and was specific in stating that the T800 will most certainly be a better fit for a majority of golfers. It’s all in the post.

Here’s the larger issue – if your stock offering is plenty good, why the deception, why can’t it stand on its own? PING shafts stand on their own. In that case, there’s ZERO intent to pass them off as something they’re not, something they’re not remotely like. PX and Callaway partnered to create something that looks nearly identical to the T1100? Why is putting the HZRDUS name on something that’s nothing like the HZRDUS family necessary?

If deception played no role in bumping sales, they wouldn’t do it.

I’m glad you brought up the retail release of the T1100. If you recall, the T1100 was already in use on tour, claiming victories, etc.. We got them for our low spin shaft tests last fall, so I’d argue that at the time of Epic’s release, T1100 was well-positioned as a tour exclusive. It had pre-launch status that made it alluring, and then boom it (or something that looks just like it) shows up stock in Epic – and ONLY Callaway has it.

You think that’s entirely coincidental?

If there’s no intent to mislead you don’t create a “HZRDUS” shaft that falls outside PX’s definition of the product line. You don’t name it T-anything (T1100 is the only numerically-based name in the family), and you don’t paint it to be virtually identical to the most expensive shaft in the HZRDUS lineup. I mean, look the totality of it…it’s not a coincidence, it’s a calculated effort.

Again – this specific part of the argument isn’t about quality – it’s about the efforts to dupe and mislead. I could say the same about the Fujikura Pro in the Epic lineup as well – and as we said, Callaway is far from alone. Other than PING (and I might be wrong), I’m not sure I can come up with a single OEM whose nose is remotely clean in all of this.

C

2 years ago

You don’t think the T800 is very similar to the HZRDUS Red or Yellow? I like MGS but you guys seem to be over playing this one. And there’s a weird trend in your Asian marketing ( the same year as starting MGS Asia is announced) and it is far from your objective analysis of American OEM counterparts. Seems fishy to me.

The yellow offers one of the most distinct (maybe THE most distinct) bend profiles on the market today. You got a guy who thinks the shaft doesn’t matter – hand him a PX yellow. I haven’t seen much of anything that’s like a Yellow.

The red would be the closest of the 4 aftermarket shafts, but that doesn’t make it close. Flex for flex the T800 is softer, most notably in the tip section. Callaway’s mid-launch T800 has a profile that is high launch by any comparative standard market standard. Again – a very different profile – and that’s before we start talking about material differences.

tang

2 years ago

Wait. Does this mean that the Fujikura Pro Blue shaft that came stock with my Callaway Epic is not the real deal?
If so, it annoys me as a consumer. I always thought that those name brand companies would match the shaft to the driver head to give the customer the best performance. Thank you MGS for opening our eyes.

Somebody asked about the Aldila and frankly, I have no idea. There’s been some feedback that even some of the stuff that’s offered as no charge upgrades is actually made for as well.

It’s all shady AF.

Kanoito

2 years ago

Hey Tony,

To build on your example: the GBB Epic… what about the Aldila Rogue MAX? If I recall correctly, it is also one of the stock shafts offered with the made for T800 and Fukikura Pro.

gunmetal

2 years ago

All due respect, but I think you’d have to be a little naive if you really believe the guys at Callaway didn’t want people to think that their T800 was the same shaft we see on the Tele. If you think that they did it just for the aesthetics (silver shafts generally pair well with anything, right?), I’m sure it played a small role, but tour recognition/validation would trump that any day of the week hands down.

The tour game can work both ways. I know if any instance where a shaft OEM was pushing a new hot product, and so they repainted a good bit of their tour product to match the primary colors and graphics of the new hotness. They made subtle changes to the accent colors so the van could tell them apart, but effectively what you had was 5 or 6 entirely different shafts all painted to look indistinguishable (on TV) from the one they were pushing heavily in the aftermarket.

Bottom line – while the direct influence of the tour is waning a bit, it still impacts the market in ways that you don’t always see.

xjohnx

2 years ago

Tony, You’re absolutely right. Chris did mention that and I’m sorry I must have been attempting my version of speed reading early in the morning there.

All of your points are well received and I understand completely. I guess the tough part is trying to quantify where the market splits, right? Your point about tour use makes sense but it’s hard to argue that a majority of players buying that club/shaft OTR even know or care about that stuff? Then there is a huge group of people who know the difference anyway and want to always play the real deal. So how large would you say the remainder is in the middle? These are people that are influenced by tour shaft use/manufactures claims towards validation of their version based on tour use of the “real” version. Seems tricky.

To your point about “why name it T-anything”. It was my understanding that they basically made the T1100 shaft out of T800 material thus, the creation of the shaft in question. Based on the difference in strength of the materials, you’re left with a completely different profile so really a different shaft. Do you think that’s all bs as well? (serious question).

I’ll jump in on a couple points here. From material, to construction, to quality control and bend profile the T800 and T1100 are vastly different shafts. They are similar in name and paint job, but that’s about it.
In terms of disaggregating the golfing population, that’s one way to look at it. That said, because there are so many people who aren’t working with accurate information, what happens when consumers do get access or this information becomes more commonplace? Will behavior change? I suppose the “don’t care” contingent will always be there, but I’m more interested to see if (and to what degree) consumer behavior changes. We’ve already seen significant change regarding golf balls and I have to think that trend will continue.

This conversations could go down thousands of different roads. You’re right, there are a large number of golfers that are all but entirely ignorant about the shaft. You have a smaller portion of the audience who pays very close attention, and then you have a segment in the middle who know just enough to be dangerous. Those are the guys who know kinda sorta what the pros play, and are the ones who companies actively mislead with the made for game. My thinking is regardless of the percentages, you shouldn’t really be trying to deceive anyone – especially when you’re the industry leader. And the thing is, it takes a hell of a lot more effort to be deceptive.

Another thing that gets lost is that the rule of thumb was that lower-priced models used made for, but premium/flagship/anything above $400 used real. In recent years that has changed, although it’s at least possible that over the next season or so, Callaway may find itself as the only major OEM with made for in its lineup.

As for the T-name – yes, named for the material, and again used to dupe the somewhat informed. T800 SOUNDS like T1100. The buyer knows the pros play T-something, but he has no idea that the strength to weight ratio on T800 is lower and the resin content is higher and that it costs less. And again, if you paint it to look near identical to the ‘real’ thing, the lines are further blurred. It’s not really the name so much as its one more part of a misleading story.

Big picture, I don’t think shaft companies should be providing anything that doesn’t rise to the standard for which they’re willing to admit it exists (on their own websites).

stevegp

strokerAce

2 years ago

From reading the article, IF you’re not going to get fit OR you do get fit and can’t afford a 400 dollar driver with a 300 dollar shaft it sounds like the “safest” route is to buy a Ping driver….at least you’ll have a higher level of confidence that you’re getting a quality shaft versus who-knows-what.

I also can’t stop forgetting about the XXIO article a while back in which they don’t sell different shafts with clubs. The club is engineered and fine tuned in a way that the combination of the shaft & head achieve the optimal performance. The clubs aren’t cheap but the more I learn about shaft/head combinations is that they need to complement each other. That’s why either a good fitting is important or XXIO has a leg up on the other OEM’s in which they’ve figured this out already.

Dan R

2 years ago

The other thing that sets XXIO (and CG/Srixon for that matter) is they are the only major OEM in the entire golf industry that owns a premium shaft manufacturing facility. All the XXIO shafts are not only designed for that golf club, but they are also manufactured in house. This all came about because none of the shaft companies were doing what xxio wanted to do. Just like all the major OEMs their top priorities when launching a new product is tour count, so all the R&D goes to 120mph club head speed. Well xxio wanted to put all their effort into moderate to slow, (aka human) club head speed. That was not a priority for any of the shaft companies at the time, so they built their own state of the art shaft manufacturing facility in Miyazaki Japan. Under XXIO they do not use the Miyazaki brand, but they do under CG/Srixon. All these shafts are made in Japan and are currently only available in a CG, Srixon or xxio club.

I believe the reason the Srixon driver performed so well in the driver tests this year, is the Miyazaki shafts. srixon uses “real deal” shafts to steal a term from this article, while the competition uses made for or watered down shafts. All the Srixon and Cleveland woods and irons will have stock Miyazaki shafts in graphite. This is a proprietary advantage that no other brand in the industry has, and probably should have been mentioned in the article, as this is on a whole different level than what Ping is doing.

Another thing that came from Miyazaki is the international flex code. A uniform way to measure flex regardless of the arbitrary letter for flex used on the shaft.

Remember as well – when buying a premium shaft – to go through an authorized dealer. You may get an incredible deal on ebay but spotting fakes is becoming harder and harder in the digital age. In addition, should that shaft break – you can deal with an authorized manufacturer easier than the shaft company. Most Shaft manufacturers will stand by their product, but Project X and Fujikura do require you to go through their dealers to ensure proper assembly and examination.

DaveyD

2 years ago

For the average golfer out there looking to start modifying their favourite clubs via the shaft route, this is an important wake-up call. For the shaft-oriented gearheads commenting on OEM offerings, this is an “everything we know might be wrong” call.

Skip

Jimmy

2 years ago

That’s exactly what I was thinking. Was there any talk by the insiders as to the quality of the “upcharge shafts”??

Tony

2 years ago

Great article and wish more knew this. Golf has people over spend. One big reason I took up making my own clubs with a frequency analyzer from eBay. Also a reason I went XCaliber shafts ( great product with cult following). For the regular guys who play a decent game there is decent stuff out there to get you into what works best for you (as long as you are willing to do a bit of trial and error right?)

Frank Sallee

2 years ago

Chris,
Good article and a pretty accurate description of the industry. Having worked in the industry I know what is true and what is not. The one issue you approached was about orientation of the shaft in a frequency mahcine, not only will the shafts vary tremdiously in bounce ,flex and cpm but this will occur in many of the high priced shafts with very expensive pre-preg. Therefore OEMS really can’t guarantee exact specs in the same models, truth be told. I don’t think you will ever see a time when they all admit to their differential from company to company specifications.

Txgolfjunkie

2 years ago

Amazing article. Seriously great stuff concerning an area that has been widely discussed on message boards but never written about in such a public forum.

The tensei shaft line has a watered down version with only minor cosmetic differences that you have to look for to determine which is legit and which is watered down. It’s a shame the consumer is deceived in this manner and most think they’re gaming the real deal.

It will be good to see the shaft testing this site does in the future.

Alan

2 years ago

A “wonderful” fantasy article !!
I am willing to make a bet as follows.
I we take a group of of let’s say 15 players with indexes ranging from say low single to mid-double digits, THEY WOULD HAVE NO IDEA WEATHER THEY WERE USING THE OEM OR REAL DEAL !!!!!
We will use the HZRDUS T 800 and T 1100 as the test shafts.

The logos will be removed and a launch monitor as well as player subjective feedback will be used to interpret results.

Your average golfer ( 100 mph swing speed with driver) is going to love the the T 800’s feels way better than the “board” T1100 AND he/she will be further down the fairway.

What you fail yo mention is how great OEM shafts have become over the past five years or so from the trickle down technology of the super premium models and how they have improved the average golfers game.

With the number of golfers decreasing each year and rounds played going South as well, focus your attention on more important aspects go the game !!

Jon

2 years ago

Agreed! I’ve been something of a “seeker” over the past few years as I try to “buy” a few strokes, with some actual success. One thing I’ve learned is that the only metric that matters to we once-a-week golfers is feel and the confidence that feel engenders. If I hit the lottery, I’d consider a “complete” fitting regardless of brand or cost from driver to putter, and that fitting may involve some after-market shaft, which would be chosen because it works for ME…NOT because of some industry-driven “fantasy”…

dang3rtown

Ron

2 years ago

Alan, where do I start? First, to imply deceptive marketing by manufacturers is not important is ridiculous. What they are doing is the equivalent of selling a tee time for Pebble Beach but dropping you at the first tee of the local muni. I’m sure you’d think THAT was important.

Also, it’s quite clear in the article that the T-800 works better for most golfers (basically because the T-1100 wouldn’t). That’s not the point. I’m sure there are other club/shaft combinations where the “real deal” shaft would be a much better fit for most golfers and in those cases it would be pretty easy to pick out the better shaft.

Take cost out of the equation for a moment – any given manufacturer has a shaft that has the same or similar bend profile/performance to the made for. Typically that’s higher launch, little softer to flex, higher torque, etc. Those shafts do exist, but the OEM wants that spec at a lower cost. To get that you have to use lower cost materials (higher resin content and with that less consistency) and so ultimately you get a pretty good, though often inconsistent product.

Point is, you can achieve the performance with existing shafts, but to hit the price point, something has to give.

Keith

If it’s made by Fujikura and it’s not the same paint job, it’s not the same shaft – other than Limited edition shafts – which are laser etched with their number and “limited edition” and painted for whatever they’re helping (Folds of honor, etc). Tour spec shafts are ALWAYS white from fujikura- it’s what they do as a manufacturer. Don’t confuse “tour spec” with “tour” flex. They have tour-s and tour-x on shafts that are just a little tighter in flex and lower launching, they are not considered Tour Spec however and should be treated as normal shafts with a stiffer flex profile.

Snap

I absolutely rate your site as my #1site for honest, informative information for all my golf purchases….this particular article was outstanding…keep up your great work of making golf companies accountable.

Michael Wills

Greg

2 years ago

Great article, confirms a lot of my long standing suspicions. Where does Miyazaki fit in this spectrum, specifically the Miyazaki shafts that come in the Cleveland and/or Srixon products? I know Cleveland owns the company. Does this mean that they use the same after market shafts in their clubs, or are they “playing the game” too? Thanks again!